Restraint and Emotion in Cicero's "De Oratore"
Author(s): Per Fjelstad
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Philosophy & Rhetoric, Vol. 36, No. 1 (2003), pp. 39-47
Published by: Penn State University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40238136 .
Accessed: 07/04/2012 13:01
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Penn State University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Philosophy
& Rhetoric.
http://www.jstor.org
Restraint and Emotion in Cicero's De Oratore
Per Fjelstad
In De Oratore Cicero has the revered orator Crassus ask, "Who then is the
man who gives people a thrill? whom do they stare at in amazement when
he speaks? who is interruptedby applause? who is thought to be so to say
a god among men?" (1942a, III.53). Crassus, who is asking his companions to think about emotional energy in speech, goes on, "It is those whose
speeches are clear, explicit, and full, perspicuous in matter and language,
and who in actual delivery achieve a sort of rhythm and cadence- that is,
whose style I call 'ornate'."
Several things are striking about the passage. First, it resolves its
inquiry by invoking the concept of ornatus, a word widely used to translate the Greek idea of kosmos (DiLorenzo 1978). Cicero thus refers to a
quality that joins the ideas of cosmic order, physical beauty, and earthly
power. Second, the passage is delivered in the midst of Crassus's discussion of the fourth rhetorical canon, that referring to the elaboration of ideas
in language, of selecting levels of style and modes of verbal embellishment. Third, the passage ranges across the entire field of rhetorical art, at
least as indexed by the scope of the canons. The performative quality directly under discussion, that which gives people a thrill- initially associated with the Theophrastian virtues of style that Crassus has been
enumerating, that is, clarity and explicitness - quickly is expanded to include copiousness of invention, perspicuity of language, and energetic
beauty in delivery. Cicero's Crassus thus discusses a performative dynamic
that appears to govern rhetoric as a whole.
As the other charactersin the dialogue discuss this quality of speech,
which engages listeners emotionally and transforms their experience of
the present, they bound beyond the preliminary categories of their analysis
and describe a power of speech that is aesthetic and philosophical. As the
Philosophyand Rhetoric,Vol. 36, No. 1, 2003.
Copyright© 2003 The PennsylvaniaState University,UniversityPark,PA.
39
40
PERFJELSTAD
narratorof this dialogue, Cicero eventually associates the possibility of
emotional transformationwith a quality of performance we might identify
as graceful or urbane.Cicero suggests that performativestyle can rise above
particulardetails, conventions, and rules of standardrhetorical instruction.
Ornate speech is, in sum, emotionally transformative. In detail, however,
how does Cicero theorize this grand ability? What goals, resources, or
models does he invoke?
This essay argues that Cicero's theory of ornatus insists an orator
display emotions relevant to the performance while responding to the need
of listeners to hear emotional expression against a backdrop of relative
calm. In developing this analysis, I claim that the dialogic format of De
Oratoreallows insight to emerge fromjuxtaposed perspectives, thatCicero's
ideal of ornatus contains a limiting threshold for performative exuberance,
and that his examples of emotional engagement illustrate the importance
of context and aesthetic restraint.
Theoretical tensions as sources for synthetic insight
Theoretical tensions in Cicero's De Oratore are instructive. While Cicero's
effort to reconcile Isocrateanpractice with Aristotelian teleology ultimately
makes for a rough fit, the juxtaposition of those understandingswithin the
dialogue also generates new insight, even about limits for rhetorical theory
itself. Referring to this mode of theorizing as "ironic eloquence," Michael
Leff holds that "throughthis merger of theory and practice, the rival conceptions of oratory as systematic art and oratory as synthetic practice coalesce within the text, the two perspectives interacting to produce a
development that incorporates both" (1986, 323).
A similar theoretical tension can be observed in De Oratore regarding the prospects and significance of emotional engagement in oratorical
performance. In discussing the practices of emotional oratoryCicero draws
on three distinct intellectual sources: a quasi-enthymematic model of emotional engagement, in which an oratorneed not share or display the soughtafter emotional response; a mimetic theory of theatrical performance (that
is, a typology of tonal and gestural "moods"); and a latent theory of "authenticity," according to which that which is being theatrically displayed is
not "fakely" fictional, but somehow genuine.
The conflicting theories suggest possibilities, rather than limit or
challenge each other's validity. Thus, the gaps between theoretical orienta-
RESTRAINT AND REMOTION IN CICERO'S DE ORATORE
41
tions remain productive in their juxtapositions of plausibly incompatible
theories. For instance, what shifts between modes of emotional engagement are advisable? Are there times when it is wise to demonstrate or display emotional moods, not only in "role plays" but also as emotions that a
speaker presents as his or her own? Surely such emotional display matters,
though not necessarily in the same way for the entire presentation. Undoubtedly there are times, even in the dynamics of theater, when the main
performer, the narrator,or even the spectator-critic effectively plays the
"straight man," the person who tells enough of a story that listeners discover an emotional response to it, but who does not himself perform, in the
telling, the supposedly "correct"emotional response. The "straight man"
instead leaves a kind of emotional (and rhetorical) vacuum into which attending audience members inevitably are drawn. As in the Aristotelian
enthymeme, this mode of theatrical representation gives audience members the pleasure of discovering and applying the appropriateemotion "on
their own." Just as in the case of the enthymeme, this sense of a discovered
attitude or opinion can be key to the rhetorical force of the performance.
While Cicero does not explore this possible nuance in any of the
characters' individual contributions, the dialogic format of his exposition
allows these questions to emerge regardless. Amongst these one might ask,
What is the range or palette of emotional representationthat stands for the
rhetorical resources available to the orator? Even more critically, what
guides the theatrical interplay between these modes of emotional evocation in giving audiences not only pleasure but also, occasionally, urgency
in the emotional responses they experience. As in the case of verbal "embellishments," the key may be in providing performative relief, with background neutrality or narrative equanimity, to balance out the otherwise
urgent emotional intensity.
The performative value of Varietas
The significance of stylistic variation in oratory is widely reported and
frequently associated with Ciceronian theory. Augustine, for example, describes and recommends performative variation as the shift from one level
of style to another. This, he states, alleviates the potential of boredom for
listeners (1995, IV.51). At first glance, Augustine seems to recommend
change simply for the sake of change, that one keep the activity of speech
moving, never letting it rest in any one place too long, regardless of the
42
PERFJELSTAD
particularplace or mode of speech for that rest. He urges variation amongst
levels of diction, for example, "For when a speech is [oversaturatedby]
one style, it does not keep the listener's attention."
Yet the explanation that Augustine gives for performative variation
goes beyond that basic principle and is reminiscent of Cicero's advice that
emotionally charged speech be used sparingly and only in carefully constructed contexts. Thus, according to Augustine, when listeners are addressed in the grand style, their feelings are excited to a "high pitch," at
which level they can be kept only for a short while. He elaborates, "If one
were to try to lift higher that which is already high, we would notice instead the pitch falling on its own accord because it could not be sustained
any longer." Thus, advises Augustine, by "interspersing matter which requires rather the subdued style, a pleasing return can be made to the subject calling for grand expression" (IV. 51). Hence it is that the grand style
of diction, if it has to be continued for some time, must not be used alone,
but must be varied by the interspersion of the other styles.
Augustine describes something here more targeted and strategic than
mere variation. He recognizes the exceptional value for preachersof speech
that heightens and excites feeling. It is after all, he claims, the grand style
that one uses for the most important goals, like moving listeners to repentance or moral action. Yet this resource, the grand style, can lose its potency much more speedily than the other styles, particularly the subdued
style. Hence for this resource to be effective at all the need is that much
greater that the speaker color preceding parts of the presentation neutrally
and with subtlety. Thus the generally valuable principle of variation takes
on an even more specialized function here, for it prepares the mood and
creates a context for the grand style to be maximally poignant. Augustine
hereby reiteratesa Ciceronianunderstandingof the power of ornatus: speech
in its most aesthetically powerful form must excite the senses and emotions but not flood them.
The work of Elaine Fantham (1988) helps us see in Cicero's De
Oratore a still finer treatment of this idea of balance and context-setting.
Fantham identifies Cicero's theme of varietas, particularly in theorizing
discourse that transforms perceptions for listeners, as key to Cicero's understanding of the oratorical virtue of ornatus. For Fantham, several attendant inflections in Cicero's discussion of the idea fill out its meaningfulness
for practicing orators. First, Cicero associates varietas with ideas of physical pleasure, linking it to words like lepos and venustas (Fantham 1988,
279). Second, Cicero conceives of varietas as a matter of performative
RESTRAINT AND REMOTION IN CICERO'S DE ORATORE
43
functionality. Thus while he does not reject the use of "applied ornament,"
he does distinguish such stylistic "decoration"from style that permeates a
whole discourse, and he assesses the appropriatenessof both by their functionality in keeping listeners attentive and moving them to action (276).
Third, Cicero regards varietas in these key passages as rhetorical action
with negativeforce, in other words, mainly as a mode of tempering or qualifying potential excess. When using cognates of varietas in this particular
way, Cicero links the idea with intermissio (relief) or reprehensio (restraint)
(277). Thus the ability of the speaker to vary a performance becomes intoned with the rhetoricalvalue of slowing down, when the temptationmight
be to go too fast, or of toning down a part of a presentation, when temptation might lure a lesser speaker to flood the audience with verbal embellishments or excessive energy. Fourth,Cicero's usage of varietas to describe
restrainthighlights the fact that humans, in particularthe human ear, enjoy
not only change (metabole), but a quality of change (277). In other words,
not only do people enjoy the experience of variation as speakers shift
amongst styles of address or when they introduce irregularities in the diction or rhythm of their sentences, but certain momentarily pleasing registers of oratorical performance also can satiate experience and actively turn
off an audience. Thus to keep listeners from reacting negatively to cloying
sweetness or unceasing bravado, the speaker must recognize these modes
of stimulation and remember that audiences also find pleasure in the stepping down of stylistic intensity in discourse.
The paraphraseof Cicero in which Fanthamdescribes this particular
quality of discourse is as follows: "Success in speaking depends on shade
and depth to increase by contrastthe prominenceof its brilliantfeatures
Like a vintage wine, a speech should be rich and appealing with firmness
and astringency [a quality that Fanthamclaims is applied here for the first
time in Latin criticism], not with sickly sweetness" (277). According to
Fantham, the danger of overstimulation marks a specific limit of ornatus
as a practical ideal.
Restraint, too, in emotional display
Now, although Crassus examines the power of ornatus mainly while discussing the fourth canon, that is, regarding style and the verbal embellishment of ideas in language, the implications of ornatus spread beyond that
44
PERFJELSTAD
particulartopic of teaching. In the remainder of this essay I argue that the
metaphor of ornatus serves as a unifying key for the whole of Cicero's
rhetorical theory and that his particularconcern about the recklessness of
excessive embellishment is a topic to which he repeatedly returns in examples of oratory that heighten and engage emotions.
The actual context within which Crassus discusses ornatus, at least
in its grandest and most philosophical sense, is in one of two sequential
digressions that take him away from his stated purpose and outline. After
discussing two aspects of style, purity, and clarity, which he initially dismissed as hardly needing to be examined, Crassus prepares to address the
first of the remaining two topics, seemingly more weighty, those of ornatus
and aptus. Yet precisely at this point, Crassus embarkson a digression about
the history of philosophy and the separation by Socrates of wisdom from
eloquence, in response to which Crassus insists that the issue should not be
so much which school of philosophy is correct or true, but which is "the
most fully akin to the orator." Clearly the scope of Crassus's discussion
expands here well beyond the small matters of purity and clarity in Latin
diction. It is precisely here, after this first lengthy digression, that Crassus
launches into his animated discussion about style and its relation to emotional engagement. He only later retraces his steps, finally to treat the subject of ornatus somewhat scholastically and dryly, in a discussion of
metaphor and other verbal figures. By its placement in the dialogue,
Crassus's discussion of ornatus clearly looks beyond the particularcanon
assigned to him by the group in their programmatic dialogue. When he
does discuss the range and limits of ornatus, he clearly points toward an
understanding of what is important generally in the art of rhetoric (c.f.
Cicero 1942a, III.21; III.120-43).
Then, in the second digression, immediately following the first,
Crassus links a comprehensive sensitivity to ornatus with emotional engagement. Ornate speech which, among other effects, shall "possess the
requisite amount of feeling and pathos," is a quality of performance that is
not formulaic or a matter of arrangement,but must "be visible throughout
the structure"of the speech (III.96). Crassus illustrates this with the image
of lights strategically placed along a street for decoration during a celebration (Fantham 1988, 276). He then explores various examples of sensuous
experience, from contemporarypainting practices to the effects of perfume,
to argue that style, as it works in oratory, must be calculated to hold the
attention of an audience, in fact, "not only to give them pleasure but also to
do so without giving them too much of it" (Cicero 1942a, III.97). Once he
RESTRAINT AND REMOTION IN CICERO*S DE ORATORE
45
develops this idea, both by analogy and by illustration from speeches,
Crassus concludes that while "ourorator shall have ornamentandcharm. . .,
at the same time his charm must be severe and substantial, not sweet and
luscious" (HI.103). Thus in the all-importantfunction of arousing the emotions of listeners, the oratormust refrain from excessive or overplayed performance.
This emphasis on emotional balance and restraintalso is pointed out
various characters in the different examples they discuss. There is,
the
by
of course, a specific section in the early dialogue during which Antonius
explicitly discusses the topic of emotional appeal. Following Aristotle, he
identifies lines of argument that can arouse and calm emotions, such as
wrath, fear, andjealousy. In the midst of this discussion, Antonius recalls a
particularspeech he gave in defense of Manius Aquilius, an alleged instigator of a popular revolt (11.195-200). In his defense, Antonius displayed
to the Court grief and anguish over the fate of the defendant, even tore
open the defendant's tunic to show physical scars, all as part of a performance that eventually won an acquittal.Antonius concluded from this story
that there are times when one should not be skimpy in emotional display,
also that those emotions, while magnified theatrically, needed also to be
genuine and authentic.
So far, so good. Yet the response to Antonius in the dialogue by
Sulpicius, the actual prosecutor in that case who lost the verdict, further
accentuates the principle of variation by which Antonius succeeded in presenting an emotional display while at the same time maintaining his credibility and keeping his audience engaged and alert as listeners. Sulpicius
recalls having had an odd response to Antonius's opening display of distress and empathy. "[J]ust as I was deciding that you had merely succeeded
in making people think intimate relationship a possible excuse for your
defending a wicked citizen, - lo and behold!- so far unsuspected by other
people, . . . you began to wriggle imperceptibly into yourfamousdefence . . .
of an incensed Roman People, whose wrath, you urged, was not wrongful,
but just and well-deserved" (11.203).
Two observations by Sulpicius here are interesting:Antonius planned
and performed a transformationin emotional tone, and the shift he made
was from a display of his own emotion to an argument that the audience
share a sense of outrage with the Roman people as a whole. Even in
Antonius's effort to explain the authenticity of his emotional displays, he
and Sulpicius in their joint recollection of the event confirm the aesthetic
value of surprise, depth, and variation in that emotional engagement.
46
PERFJELSTAD
A furtherillustration, though from a different work, shows even more
vividly the extent to which emotional representation is best approached
with artistic restraint. In De Paninone Oratoria, Cicero comments that a
speaker may inflect opinion (inflexione sermonis) so that even when praising anotheror disparaging himself, he in fact is making a more subtle point.
This could be the case of a speaker using irony. A possible inference of
consciously restrained delivery in such a situation, according to Cicero, is
that the speaker shows his civility and generous nature(comitatefieri magis
quam vanitate) (1942b, 22). Thus the potentially glaring quality of irony is
tempered and made more palatable if the speaker stylistically downplays
the overt expression of implied emotion. In a sense, audience members
then feel that the emotional interpretationof the message is something they
independently apply to it. Much like the enthymeme, then, such restraint
or stylistic sublimation of emotional meaning allows for audiences to perceive themselves as active participantsin the creationof oratoricalmeaning.
Conclusion
The argument of this essay functions as a preliminary inquiry. It shows
that Cicero juxtaposes distinct and sometimes conflicting recommendations concerning effective emotional engagement in oratory,that his theory
of performative style cautions against excessiveness, and that he recommends a similar caution against effusive and unvaried emotional display.
In sum, the orator who gives audiences a thrill, who appears before them
almost as a god, whose style of speaking is ample and ornate, this speaker
will keep the emotional energy of the discourse fluid and changing. He
will not cheapen that energy by riding it too far or too simplistically, but
instead will give proportion and depth, light and shade, to the emotional
meanings of a message.
In a very general sense this analysis also prompts further inquiry
into the scope and focus of Ciceronian theory. First, the inquiry suggests
that the aesthetic ideal of ornatus serves as a global key, a signature contribution, for interpretingCicero's rhetoricaltheory.The associations and limitations to rhetorical practice that Cicero highlights in his treatment of
ornatus illuminate his larger theory of rhetoric as a philosophical art, as a
practice and calling that goes beyond the textbook traditions. Second, his
specific conception of ornatus, both as regards its philosophical signifi-
RESTRAINT AND REMOTION IN CICERO'S DE ORATORE
47
canee and its practical limitations, might effectively be analyzed against
the backdrop of the dispute during Cicero's lifetime over the relative merits of the Asiatic versus Attic styles. In other words, Cicero's theory makes
a case for verbal exuberance, even theatrical pyrotechnics, as long as those
flashes of emotional performance also are supportedand contextualized by
more measured and steady discourse. Finally, Cicero's position that emotional display should be tempered could represent a conceptual synthesis
of content-oriented invention with the mimetic practice of displaying emotions relevant to the content. While Cicero recognizes, in the character of
Antonius, that no fire will start without a spark, he also recognizes that a
well-set fire needs only one good spark, and that listeners will gain more
satisfaction by supplying the missing emotional "premises"themselves than
by having them always dramatically performed for them. A good fire, the
kind of fire that burns ornatissimi in a city, will feed itself quickly and
supply its own ongoing ignition. Overall, Cicero's theory asks us to consider the prospect of a thriving city, a cultured populace, and the delicate
maneuver of starting and controlling a fire in such a context, a fire that is
and remains a pleasing spectacle. Emotional modulation would appear to
be an aesthetic competence for kindling and keeping that kind of fire.
Department of Language, Literature, and Arts
TexasA&M International University
WorksCited
Augustine. 1995. De Doctrina Christiana. Ed. and trans. R. P. H. Green. Oxford: Clarendon
P.
Cicero, Marcus Tullius. 1942a. De Oratore. Trans. E. W. Sutton and H. Rackam. Cambridge,
MA: HarvardUP.
. 1942b. De Paninone Oratoria. Trans. H. Rackam. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUP.
DiLorenzo, Raymond. 1978. "The Critique of Socrates in Cicero's De Oratore'.Ornatus and
the Nature of Wisdom." Philosophy and Rhetoric 11: 247-61.
Fantham, Elaine. 1988. "Varietas and Satietas; De Oratore 3.96-103 and the Limits of
Ornatus." Rhetorica 3: 275-90.
Leff, Michael. 1986. "Genre and Paradigm in the Second Book of De Oratore." Southern
Speech Communication Journal 51: 308-25.